Monitoring Strategy for Oregon's Waters - An Inter-Agency Approach Oregon Stream Team
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Monitoring Strategy for
Oregon’s Waters
An Inter-Agency Approach
Oregon Stream Team
2017Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
Oregon Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................ 3
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities........................................................................... 3
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs .................................................................. 5
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy ...................................................... 5
Data and Information Gaps......................................................................................................... 5
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality .............................................................................. 7
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities........................................................................... 7
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs .................................................................. 8
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy ...................................................... 9
Environmental Data and Information Gaps .............................................................................. 11
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife...................................................................................... 12
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities......................................................................... 12
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs ................................................................ 12
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy .................................................... 13
Oregon Department of Forestry ................................................................................................... 17
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities......................................................................... 17
Agency Specific Monitoring, Data, and Information Needs ..................................................... 17
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy .................................................... 18
Data and Information Gaps....................................................................................................... 18
Oregon Water Resources Department ......................................................................................... 19
Geographic and Programmatic Responsibilities ....................................................................... 19
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs ................................................................ 19
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy .................................................... 23
Data and Information Gaps....................................................................................................... 23
Oregon Department of State Lands .............................................................................................. 24
Geographic and Programmatic Responsibilities ....................................................................... 24
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs ................................................................ 24
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy .................................................... 24
Data and Information Gaps....................................................................................................... 25
iOregon Watershed Enhancement Board...................................................................................... 26
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities......................................................................... 26
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs ................................................................ 26
Oregon State University - the Institute for Natural Resources and the Institute for Water and
Watersheds ................................................................................................................................... 29
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities......................................................................... 29
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs ................................................................ 29
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy .................................................... 29
Data and Information Gaps....................................................................................................... 29
Overlapping Themes, Needs and Summary.................................................................................. 30
Overlapping Themes ................................................................................................................. 30
Needs Assessment .................................................................................................................... 30
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 34
iiExecutive Summary
This water monitoring strategy for Oregon’s waters developed by an Oregon inter-agency
STRategic Enterprise Approach to Monitoring (STREAM) Team, combines state agency
information into a single reference document to promote coordination and collaboration. The
purpose of this document is to help natural resources agency scientists identify and collect the
right information needed to inform policy-makers about emerging water issues, the status and
trends of Oregon’s waters, and the effectiveness of current agency actions.
This strategy identifies the current authorities, monitoring strategies, and programs of Oregon’s
seven primary natural resource agencies working to monitor the status and trends of Oregon’s
fresh waters, in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams, estuaries and groundwater, along with the
aquatic life they support. The agencies included here are the Department of Agriculture (ODA),
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW),
the Department of Forestry (ODF), the Water Resources Department (WRD), the Department of
State Lands (DSL), and the Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Also included are two
integrated university based institutes: the Institute for Water and Watersheds (IWW) at Oregon
State University, and the Institute for Natural Resources (INR) at Oregon State University and
Portland State University.
While the authorities, monitoring strategies and programs of the seven agencies vary, they
overlap in their focus on effectiveness monitoring. Collectively, the agencies have extensive
programs to regulate the use of, impacts to, and restoration of water and aquatic systems in
the state. The majority of their monitoring has been designed to develop plans or programs and
to assess how effective these programs and actions are. This strategy begins to identify
opportunities for agencies to work together to plan, collaborate and share environmental data.
The results of this ongoing coordination will enhance efficiencies, provide more complete water
data and create economies of scale.
As current environmental data systems are replaced and new monitoring programs are
established, coordination will increase the efficiency of monitoring efforts. For example,
statewide stream temperature and flow monitoring is a key information need and a gap in
monitoring coordination. A major need is to understand water quality and quantity trends,
including a coordinated statewide stream temperature and flow monitoring program that
would (1) inventory existing information, (2) identify gaps, (3) establish new monitoring sites,
and (4) develop a common storage solution for continuous data to facilitate mapping of current
and future resource states through stream network monitoring tools. Temperature and flow
are cross-cutting indicators important to many of the natural resource agencies, presenting an
immediate opportunity for coordination and efficiency gains. Web-based data tools offer
opportunities for agencies to coordinate their ongoing monitoring efforts for temperature and
flow. The STREAM Team offers an important venue for facilitated inter-agency discussion about
common questions, and to facilitate monitoring and environmental data coordination to ensure
that data tools and other supporting products remain relevant to these questions.
1Introduction
High quality environmental monitoring data provides a foundation for making sound decisions
that impact Oregon’s water resources. In 2012, Oregon developed the state’s first Integrated
Water Resources Strategy (IWRS 2012) which identified the need to improve access to water
quality and water quantity monitoring information as a “critical issue”. This strategy provides
specific recommendations and outlines an over-arching inter-agency framework to address
these issues. Oregon’s natural resources agencies collect a wide variety of environmental data
on our shared water resources. These data are used to assess compliance with regulations,
evaluate the effectiveness of restoration and conservation projects designed to protect and
restore stream flows, water quality, and aquatic life, and to identify issues of emerging concern.
This monitoring strategy was developed by Oregon’s inter-agency STRategic Enterprise
Approach to Monitoring (STREAM) Team. It examines the roles, responsibilities and questions
state natural resource agencies have related to water monitoring activities. This information
was compiled to help agency scientists identify and collect the information needed to better
inform policy-makers about emerging issues of concern, the status and trends of Oregon’s
waters, and the effectiveness of current agency actions and programs.
The different authorities, jurisdictions and missions of Oregon’s natural resources agencies
often require unique data to interpret compliance with agency rules, programmatic
effectiveness and success in accomplishing specific mission objectives. At the same time, there
are opportunities to share environmental data between our agencies while creating efficiencies
in the way data is collected and shared. The success of any individual agencies’ environmental
mission is linked to the success of all partners. As agencies and organizations strive to
understand the status and trends of our waters and aquatic life, and the effectiveness of
programmatic activities, we need evidence that our collective efforts are working,
complementary and efficient to insure plentiful, clean water is available to meet the needs of
current and future generations.
This strategy provides an overview of the current strategies, authorities and programs of
Oregon’s natural resource agencies use in order to monitor Oregon’s fresh waters, in lakes,
reservoirs, rivers, streams, estuaries and groundwater, along with the biota they support. Each
agency provides a short summary that includes information on each of the following:
• The federal and/or state rules that provide authority to monitor;
• The primary information needs or questions addressed by the strategy:
• Where on the geographic and or political landscape the strategy applies:
• How the agency goes about implementing their strategy; and
• Gaps in the strategy or in agency monitoring that need to be addressed.
2Oregon Department of Agriculture
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities
In 1993, the Oregon Legislature passed the AgWQ Management Act directing ODA to develop
plans to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion, to
achieve water quality standards, and to adopt rules as necessary to implement the Program
(Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 568.900 through 568.933). In 1995, the Oregon Legislature
further clarified that ODA is the lead agency for regulating agriculture with respect to water
quality (ORS 561.191).
State and federal programs that drive the establishment of Area Plans and Rules include:
• State water quality standards.
• Load allocations for agricultural nonpoint source pollution assigned under Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) issued pursuant to Section 303(d) of the federal Clean
Water Act.
• Approved management measures for Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.
• Agricultural activities detailed in a Groundwater Management Area Action Plan (if the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established a Groundwater
Management Area and an action plan has been developed).
The Program applies to all agricultural activities on non-federal and non-Tribal Trust land.
Between 1997 and 2004, ODA
worked with Local Advisory
Committees (LACs) and other
local partners to develop Area
Plans and associated Area
Rules in 38 watershed-based
Management Areas across
Oregon (Figure 1). ODA meets
with the LAC, SWCD staff, and
other conservation partners
every two years to review and
update each Area Plan.
The Program emphasizes
protection and enhancement
of vegetation along streams to
prevent and control water Figure 1. ODA's Watershed Based Management Areas.
pollution from agriculture
activities and to prevent and control soil erosion. Streamside vegetation can provide three
primary water quality functions: shade for reducing solar heating of streams, streambank
stability, and filtration of pollutants. The Program uses the concept of “site-capable vegetation”
(SCV) to describe the vegetation that agricultural streams can provide to protect water quality.
SCV is the vegetation that can be expected to grow at a particular site, given natural site factors
3(e.g., elevation, soils, climate, hydrology, wildlife, fire, floods) and historical and current human
influences that are beyond the Program’s statutory authority (e.g., stream channelization,
roads, modified flows, previous land management). The goal is for Oregon’s agricultural
landowners to provide the water quality functions (shade, streambank stability, and filtration of
pollutants) produced by SCV along streams flowing through agricultural lands.
Area Plans
Area Plans provide guidance for addressing water quality related to agricultural activities in
each Management Area. Area Plans are non-regulatory and unenforceable. Each Area Plan
identifies strategies to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural lands through a
combination of outreach programs, suggested land treatments, voluntary management
activities, funding, compliance with regulatory Area Rules, and monitoring.
The goal of each Area Plan is to prevent and control water pollution from agricultural activities
and soil erosion and achieve applicable water quality standards. This goal is the same as the
Program’s goal. This goal is accomplished through helping landowners make on-the-ground
changes, resulting in improved upland and streamside conditions that will protect water quality
(Figure 2). ODA and LACs will use the monitoring data provided at each biennial review as part
of the adaptive management process to review and evaluate progress, and determine what
additional efforts, if any, are needed. These may include work in prioritized watersheds and
adoption of appropriate management practices.
INPUTS SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
OUTPUTS
(Outreach, tech OUTCOMES OUTCOMES
(On-the-ground
assistance, (Improved land (Improved water
practices)
funding) conditions) quality)
Figure 2. Process for meeting the Area Plan/Program GOAL
Area Rules
Area Rules (Oregon Administrative Rules 603-095-0000 through 3900) require that landowners
perform actions as necessary to prevent and control pollution from agricultural activities and
soil erosion.
All Management Areas have at least two rules: a waste rule and a streamside vegetation rule.
Some Area Rules have additional rules that are specific to that Management Area.
Waste Rule
All agricultural landowners must comply with a Waste Rule by not polluting ground or surface
water, discharging wastes into waters of the state, or placing any wastes in a location where
they are likely to enter waters of the state (ORS 468B.025). Wastes include excess soil, manure,
fertilizer, or other substances that can pollute water. Waters of the state can include ponds,
groundwater, canals, ditches, and rivers.
4Streamside Vegetation Rule
At a minimum, all agricultural landowners must comply with a streamside vegetation rule by
allowing vegetation to establish and grow along:
• Streams that flow all year (perennial streams), to provide shade, stabilize banks, and
filter out pollutants from overland flows.
• Streams that flow part of the year (intermittent streams), to stabilize banks and filter
out pollutants from overland flows.
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs
The Program is currently focused on showing progress via monitoring. The Program primarily
focuses on evaluating land conditions that are under the control of landowners, and also
collects in-stream water quality data under specific circumstances. The Program has also
developed a long-term plan to monitor stream temperatures related to changes in streamside
vegetation.
The Program’s key monitoring questions, to determine status and trends, are:
A. Inputs and Outputs
1. What activities are being done to help achieve desired land conditions and water quality?
B. Short-term Outcomes: Compliance and Land Conditions
2. What percent of agricultural uplands are in compliance with the Waste Rule?
3. What percent of stream miles on agricultural lands are in compliance with the Streamside
Vegetation Rule?
4. What percent of agricultural uplands have land conditions that protect water quality?
5. What percent of stream miles on agricultural lands have vegetation that provides water
quality functions equivalent to site-capable vegetation?
6. What percent of stream miles on agricultural lands have conditions that will likely prevent
site-capable vegetation from providing desirable water quality functions?
C. Long-term Outcomes
7. What are water quality status and trends in agricultural areas?
8. How are water quality status and trends related to changes in agricultural upland and
streamside vegetation conditions?
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy
The ODA Water Quality Program has just updated its monitoring strategy. It has identified the
key monitoring questions presented above and is developing methods and metrics to answer
the questions. The key questions, metrics, and methods are likely to evolve slightly over time as
they are discussed and further refined.
Data and Information Gaps
5ODA relies on available information to implement the Program and measure progress.
However, data gaps lead to many assumptions and limitations. ODA has identified gaps (Table
3) that limit our ability to effectively answer our key monitoring questions.
Table 1. Data gaps identified by ODA and key monitoring questions being affected
Gaps Questions
An accurate, detailed statewide GIS layer of agricultural lands Q2-8
An accurate, detailed statewide GIS layer of perennial and seasonal streams Q2-8
An accurate, detailed statewide GIS layer of site-capable streamside Q3, 5-6, 8
vegetation communities
Comprehensive documentation of conservation activities implemented at the Q1
Management Area scale
Sufficient data to characterize agricultural water quality in most Management Q7-8
Areas
Adequate water quality data for seasonal streams Q7-8
An affordable, repeatable, automated method for assessing the Q3, 5-6, 8
characteristics of streamside vegetation at the landscape scale
An assessment method that characterizes land conditions on uplands that is Q4
applicable across the state
An assessment method that relates existing streamside vegetation to site- Q5
capable vegetation
An assessment method that identifies stream segments on agricultural lands Q6
that have conditions that likely prevent SCV from providing desirable water
quality functions
Adequate flow data for perennial and seasonal streams to calculate loads Q7-8
6Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is authorized and in certain cases mandated to
conduct water quality monitoring under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS).
• ORS 468.05: (1) (b) and ORS 468.05 (1) authorize the department to conduct monitoring.
• ORS 468B.110 (4): Requires the department to establish guidelines describing how the
department and commission will determine whether water quality standards in waters
affected by non-point sources are being met.
• ORS 468B.035: Authorizes the department to implement the Clean Water Act.
• ORS 468B.160 (3): Requires the department to conduct statewide programs to identify
and characterize groundwater quality.
• ORS468B.162 (4): Requires the department submit a report to the legislature on January 1
of each odd numbered year on the status of groundwater in Oregon.
• ORS468B.190: Requires the department conduct a groundwater monitoring and
assessment program based on vulnerability to contamination that determines status, long
term trends and emerging problems.
The Department also implements the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Clean Water Act
requirements related to monitoring include:
• Section 106 (d): “ Administrator shall not make any grants under this section to any state
which has not provided or is not carrying out as a part of the program-(1) The
establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to monitor, and to compile and analyze data on (including classification
according to eutrophic condition) the quality of navigable water and to the extent
practicable, groundwaters including biological monitoring; and provisions for annually
updating such data and including it in the report required under Section 305 of this Act.”
• Section 303(d) (1) (A) & (B): Requires each state to identify waters within its boundaries
for which effluent limits and controls of thermal discharges required by section 301are
not stringent enough to meet water quality standards and to assure protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
• Section 305 (b)(1): Requires each state submit a biennial report by April 1 on even
numbered years that includes a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in
the state, an analysis of the extent to which they provide for shellfish, fish, wildlife and
recreation, the extent to which the elimination of pollutants has provided for the above
and recommendations for additional actions necessary to do so, the economic and social
costs to do so, and a description of the extent of non-point source pollutants and
recommended actions to address non-point sources including costs.
• Section 314: Requires the establishment of a clean lakes program including an assessment
of the status and trends in water quality in publicly owned lakes and list of impaired lakes
and the pollutant sources in those lakes.
• Section 406: Requires the establishment of a coastal recreation water monitoring and
notification program.
7Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs
Water quality data are needed by virtually all of DEQ’s water programs. Every two years, new
statewide water quality data are compiled and evaluated for compliance with Oregon’s water
quality standards. Water quality data are needed to identify emerging water quality problems
and to identify where new water quality standards may need to be developed. Waters not
meeting water quality standards requires additional, more detailed water quality data to
investigate and quantify pollution sources for allocating pollution reduction responsibilities and
developing projects and plans to achieve compliance with water quality standards over time.
Water quality data is also needed to understand the condition of Oregon groundwater.
Groundwater provides critical services including drinking water, agriculture and in-stream
flows. Monitoring data is used to identify emerging contamination problems, to develop plans
in areas with known contamination issues and to track progress in areas with established
groundwater management plans.
High level water quality information, such as indices and metrics, are also needed to
communicate with decision makers and the general public on the status and changes in water
quality across Oregon. Complex water quality data may be too detailed and time consuming for
non-scientists to interpret for making important decisions. Surrogates measures that simplify
the data without compromising the accuracy of the information are needed to assist with
interpreting complex information. Moreover, DEQ’s water programs use additional
environmental data, including physical and climate variables.
DEQ needs water related monitoring data and information to:
• develop and renew water quality permits.
• develop the 303 (d) listing of impaired waters of the state. (April 1, even years)
• report on water quality issues statewide 305(b) report. (April 1, even years)
• develop Total Maximum Daily Load models. (ongoing)
• understand compliance with water quality regulations.
• develop of new water quality standards.
• calculate the Oregon Water Quality Index (annual Key Performance Measure).
• assess groundwater conditions in groundwater management areas.
• assess groundwater conditions statewide.
• understand and reduce pesticides in targeted watersheds by using monitoring data and
adaptive management.
• understand current use pesticides, legacy contaminants, industrial intermediates, and
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in watersheds statewide for the
development of reduction strategies.
• inform recreation contact risks associated with bacteria on the coast.
• inform recreational contact risks associated with cyanotoxins.
8Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy
DEQ has implemented many of the monitoring programs and activities outlined in “A Strategy
for Monitoring Oregon’s Waters 2005”. Resource limitations, competing priorities and
emerging water quality issues have shifted some of the focus envisioned in the strategy. Below
is a summary of monitoring activities currently being implemented by DEQ and how they
compare with the goals envisioned in 2005.
Probabilistic Monitoring of Rivers and Streams
Proposed: Rotating basin approach, based on a probabilistic assessment of streams and rivers.
DEQ will sample 50 random sites within three, 3rd-field HUCs per year (150 sites/year).
Actual: Participation in the National Rivers and Streams Assessment:
Approximately 50 sites every five years
An addition 25-50 sites per year in one to two watersheds.
Large River Network
Proposed: A fixed station network of approximately150 sites located on more than 50 rivers
across the state currently makes up the large river monitoring network. These sites cover 4th
order and larger rivers; there is one site for approximately every 56 miles of 4th order and
larger river in the state.
Actual: DEQ currently monitors 131 large river fixed station sites statewide. In addition, DEQ
receives funding from the Oregon Department of Agriculture to monitor an additional 19 sites
on agricultural lands using the same protocols.
Reference Site Monitoring
Proposed: Reference sites within each of the fifteen, 6-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) will
be sampled as part of the rotating basin probabilistic surveys.
Actual: DEQ reinitiated reference site monitoring using a new screening tool for selecting
reference site locations. Currently12 statewide reference trending sites are monitored annually.
TMDL Monitoring Total Maximum Daily Load
Proposed: Involves intensive monitoring at targeted sites at a 4th field HUC scale. The data is
used in the development of maximum daily loads for specific pollutant parameter(s) in
waterbodies identified in Oregon’s list of impaired waters (303d). Monitoring needs are
determined along with resource requirements, priorities are established, and resources are
allocated based on those priorities.
Actual: We currently operate at about half of the TMDL monitoring effort proposed in DEQ’s
2005 strategy.
9Mixing Zones
Proposed: Increase the number of mixing zone studies completed per year from approximately
15 to 25 or 30.
Actual: DEQ does not receive funding to conduct mixing zones but currently conducts up to five
per year for communities that have limited resources. This effort changes annually.
Toxics Monitoring
Proposed: The objectives of toxics monitoring in Oregon are to provide data to understand the
risks to human health and aquatic life posed by current use and legacy contaminants in water,
sediment and fish tissue. Broadly the strategy is to:
• Gather information to characterize the presence and concentration of current-use
pesticides, legacy pesticides, combustions byproducts, metals and industrial intermediates
in Oregon’s rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries.
• Use this information to identify sources of these chemicals.
• Present and make available information gathered for public benefit.
• Work with DEQ internal groups, community groups and Oregon citizens to identify
opportunities for reducing these pollutants.
Actual: An initial statewide round of samples was collected using a risk-based, targeted
sampling design. Initial toxics monitoring resources enabled 3 sampling events in 2 geographic
areas per year at approximately 20 locations with a sub-set that included sediment and fish
tissue. Reduced resources have reduced coverage to 2 sampling events in one geographic area.
Groundwater Monitoring
Proposed:
• Reinstate risk based targeted groundwater monitoring statewide.
• Continue monitoring in the three Groundwater Management Areas.
• Implement a long-term trending network in the three GMAs.
Actual: Statewide groundwater monitoring resources were provided to reinstate groundwater
monitoring efforts on a statewide basis. Trend monitoring in the groundwater management
areas continues. However, no long term monitoring network has been established statewide,
and reductions in capacity for monitoring groundwater resources have scaled back monitoring
efforts by one third at both the statewide scale and in the groundwater management areas.
Beach Monitoring
Proposed: The beach monitoring program is a cooperative effort between the Oregon Health
Authority (OHA) and the DEQ that utilizes the specific authorities and capacities of each agency
to accomplish the work. During summer months, the DEQ provides bacteria data to OHA to
assess health risks to beach users and post advisories if bacteria levels exceed action values.
Actual: Beach monitoring is operating as projected in the strategy.
10Lakes Monitoring
Proposed: Proposed work includes a targeted lake monitoring design within a rotating basin
approach. The objective is to quantify water quality conditions in lakes with known or
suspected water quality problems and document whether water quality criteria are violated. In
addition, evaluate satellite imagery to characterize and track seasonal trends in chlorophyll,
phyocyanins and turbidity and collect sediment cores to characterize long-term trends in lake
conditions based on diatom assemblages.
Actual: DEQ participates in the National Lake Assessment every 5 years. In 2017, DEQ
supplemented funding from the EPA to get a statistically valid sample for Oregon and
incorporated toxics monitoring.
Estuary Monitoring
Proposed: Continue to participate in the EPA National Coastal Condition Assessment.
Actual: DEQ continues to participate in the National Coastal Condition Assessment every 5
years. Additional work on sediment and tissue toxics are done in estuaries when the toxics
monitoring program rotates to the Oregon coast.
Environmental Data and Information Gaps
DEQ’s water programs are working on improved environmental data acquisition, storage and
retrieval capabilities to access the DEQ laboratory’s data and other documented environmental
data collection sources. Ready access to environmental data sets will provide more complete
information for addressing high priority water program needs such as: the development of
water quality standards, permit development, environmental assessments, compliance with
regulations, watershed planning (TMDL’s), and evaluating project effectiveness. Development
of standardized, consistent metrics for evaluating and measuring environmental outcomes will
help allocate limited resources. Access to more environmental data will reveal where the
information gaps still exist and what environmental data is needed to fill them.
Oregon needs ongoing data collection to identify and control new toxic chemicals that may
threaten important beneficial uses in surface water and groundwater. Finally, long term water
quality data sets for understanding trends and effectiveness environmental projects and
programs is limited.
11Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities
The mission of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is to protect and enhance
Oregon’s fish and wildlife; and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future
generations. With respect to the beneficial uses of water, ODFW is responsible for the
management of aquatic life, including fish. Oregon has 73 known native freshwater fish species,
as well as a number of subspecies, distributed across Oregon’s diverse aquatic ecosystems.
ODFW’s management of native fish species is guided by the Native Fish Conservation Policy
(NFCP), which identifies three management goals:
• Prevent the serious depletion of native fish;
• Maintain and restore naturally produced fish in order to provide substantial ecological,
economic and cultural benefits to the citizens of Oregon; and
• Foster and sustain opportunities for fisheries consistent with the conservation of
naturally produced fish and the responsible use of hatcheries.
The NFCP is implemented through conservation and recovery plans, which identify the desired
and existing status of native fish, key limiting factors, management options to address limiting
factors, and the monitoring required for evaluation of success.
ODFW does not have direct regulatory authority over water quality or quantity, but the agency
provides comments and guidance to other state and federal regulatory agencies regarding
water use, instream flow rights, water quality standards, hydroelectric application review, land
use/development proposals, and instream and riparian habitat restoration and protection.
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs
With respect to fish and fisheries, ODFW requires information to address several overarching
needs, including:
• Determining if there is a conservation concern for native fish species;
• Identifying limiting factors affecting Species Management Unit (SMU)[1] persistence;
• Determining the extent of non-native species;
• Categorizing habitat for protection and restoration guidance, consistent with ODFW’s
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy; and
• Informing decisions and evaluating outcomes of management actions (e.g., harvest,
hatcheries, habitat restoration).
Specific monitoring needs are identified in conservation and recovery plans. In addition to the
fish management needs outlined above, ODFW utilizes water quality and quantity data to
inform comments and guidance to other state and federal regulatory agencies regarding water
use, instream flow rights, water quality standards, hydroelectric application review, and land-
use/development proposals.
123. Legal Authorities Related to Water
• The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is charged with the protection and
propagation of fish in the state. This includes responsibility for regulating harvest of fish,
protection of fish, enhancement of fish populations through habitat improvement, and
the rearing and release of fish into public waters (See ORS 506.036). ODFW’s Fish
Division is responsible for the management of all fish and other marine life over which
the State Fish and Wildlife Commission has regulatory jurisdiction (ORS 506.142).
• As the state agency with fish and wildlife expertise, ODFW is directed to provide
comments to Water Resources Department regarding water use applications, permit
extensions, or transfers of use (See OAR 690-033; OAR 690-315; and OAR 690- 380 for
transfers). ODFW also has the authority to file for instream water rights (ORS 537.336).
• Vector Control - Vector Control Districts and Counties must obtain ODFW approval
before applying pesticides to control vectors (ORS 452.140 and ORS 452.245). ODFW's
role in vector control is to review and approve the use of pesticides used by Vector
Control Districts or Counties in order to protect fish, wildlife and their habitats.
• Fish Passage – Fish passage is required in all waters of the state in which native
migratory fish are currently or were historically present.
o ODFW is responsible for determining the current or historical presence of native
migratory fish and for reviewing and approving passage plans, waivers, or
exemptions from providing passage. Regulations covering fish passage can be
found ORS 509.580-910 and in OAR 635, Division 412.
o The owner or operator of artificial obstructions located in these waters must
address fish passage requirements prior to abandonment or specific trigger events
(e.g., installation, major replacement, a fundamental change in permit status).
• Scientific Take Permits – OAR 635-007-0900 requires a Scientific Taking Permit issued by
ODFW in order to take fish from the waters of the state for scientific or educational
purposes. Statutory Authority is found in ORS 506.119 (See also OAR 635-007-0910
through 635-007-0950).
• A few more to add here (e.g., in-water blasting permits, fish screening and bypass
requirements, fish and wildlife habitat mitigation guidance)
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy
ODFW currently implements several large-scale research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME)
programs to track things like habitat status and trend, population health, and management
action effectiveness, generally as called for in conservation and recovery plans or other
management frameworks. The summaries below provide a description of these larger-scale
RME programs, but they are not a comprehensive listing of ODFW’s monitoring activities.
West Region Fish Research (Corvallis Research Laboratory, CRL):
CRL houses fish RME projects from ODFW’s West Region and Conservation and Recovery
Program. Several of these projects are linked through the use of a common site selection and
rotating panel design to allow for better integration of data and analyses. Projects based at CRL
include:
13• Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling Project (OASIS). The OASIS project is
responsible for conducting spawner surveys for coastal and lower Columbia River
anadromous salmon and steelhead populations, and spring Chinook salmon in the
Willamette basin.
• Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring Project (LCM). The LCM project monitors adult spawners
and out-migrating juvenile salmonid abundance and provides marine and freshwater
survival estimates for Coho salmon at a network of life cycle monitoring sites in western
Oregon.
• Aquatic Inventories Project (AQI). The AQI project monitors the status and trend of
stream habitat within the distribution of Coho salmon on the Oregon Coast and in the
lower Columbia River basin. In 2014, AQI incorporated surveys for juvenile salmonids on
the Oregon Coast and tributaries to the lower Columbia River (Western Oregon Rearing
Project, WORP).
• Coastal Chinook Research and Monitoring Project (CCRMP). CCRMP provides
information to support Oregon’s participation in the Pacific Salmon Treaty
(PST).[1] CCRMP conducts research and monitoring to determine spawner abundance
of coastal Chinook salmon and to estimate harvest of Oregon’s coastal Chinook salmon
in ocean and freshwater fisheries.
• Willamette Salmonid Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (Willamette RME). The
Willamette RME program provides information about the salmon, steelhead, and bull
trout populations in the Willamette River Basin. Specific work includes (1) monitoring of
hatchery and naturally-produced spring Chinook and steelhead returning to hatcheries,
fish monitoring facilities, and spawning grounds; (2) assessments of reintroduction
programs for spring Chinook above U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dams; (3)
evaluation of hatchery release strategies; (4) assessment of impacts by hatchery
summer steelhead; (5) monitoring of juvenile salmonids migrating into USACE
reservoirs; (6) ecological and behavioral studies of salmonids rearing in USACE
reservoirs, (7) genetic assessments of Willamette basin salmon and steelhead
populations; and (8) research and monitoring of bull trout in the upper Willamette
Basin.
• Native Fish Investigations (NFI). NFI conducts statewide RME on Oregon’s non-
anadromous native fish to provide scientific information on the status, life history,
genetics and habitat needs for Oregon’s native fish populations. Current and past
projects include studies of life history, genetics and limiting factors of bull trout in
Northeast Oregon; status, age and growth, spawning ecology and habitat associations of
Oregon chub in the Willamette Valley; distribution, abundance and habitat associations
of Pacific and western brook lamprey on the Oregon Coast; movement and seasonal
habitat use of westslope cutthroat trout in the John Day Basin; movement of juvenile
redband trout in the Upper Klamath River; and design of monitoring strategies for
several non-anadromous species.
• Research, Evaluation, Data, and Decision support (REDD). The REDD group focuses on
incorporating the latest scientific advances into sampling methodologies, statistical
analyses, predictive modeling, and decision-making research to better measure and
understand the trajectories of fish species.
14East Region Fish Research (Northeast-Central Oregon Fish Research and Monitoring, NECORM):
NECORM is responsible for fish research and monitoring across a broad geographic area from
Hood River in the lower Columbia River upstream to the Imnaha River in northeast Oregon. This
program focuses on high priority monitoring identified in federal and state Conservation and
Recovery Plans for Oregon steelhead and Chinook salmon populations in the Middle Columbia
and Snake Rivers, Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) in the Federal Columbia River
Power System Biological Opinion, the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, and the NPCC
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The program evaluates status of populations and
habitat; tracks progress and efficacy of actions taken to improve status and reduce threats;
redirects actions that are not producing desired outcomes, supports decisions regarding
commercial, tribal and recreational fisheries; and provides knowledge to assess effectiveness of
hatcheries for mitigation and recovery. Tribal and Federal managers as well as other private
groups rely extensively on this program to provide information and guidance related to
restoration and enhancement efforts, and many of these projects are conducted cooperatively
with Tribal co-managers. Specific program objectives include assessing:
• abundance, productivity and life history of Fifteen Mile Creek steelhead;
• reproductive success of stray hatchery and wild steelhead and influence of hatchery
strays on natural productivity in the Deschutes River basin;
• habitat, productivity and life cycle survival of John Day River summer steelhead and
spring Chinook salmon;
• abundance, productivity, survival and outmigration of Umatilla River salmonids;
• Umatilla Hatchery effectiveness;
• productivity, life cycle survival, hatchery effectiveness, and habitat-steelhead
production relationships of Grande Ronde Basin steelhead;
• life history, life cycle survival, supplementation, hatchery effectiveness, and habitat-
production relationships for Grande Ronde and Imnaha Chinook salmon;
• hatchery supplementation, relative reproductive success, and hatchery effectiveness for
Imnaha Basin summer steelhead; and
• status and trends of wild, natural, and hatchery stocks of anadromous salmonids to the
Hood River Subbasin.
Data and Information Gaps
Each of ODFW’s fish RME programs was designed to operate at a specific scale, and many were
designed and implemented in response to listings under the federal Endangered Species Act.
These RME programs have facilitated a better understanding of salmonid population
fluctuations and distribution of populations and their habitat, but resources have not supported
sustained monitoring for many non-anadromous species. Monitoring data provided to-date has
been crucial to informing harvest and progress towards recovery, as well as generally improving
our understanding of occupancy, population dynamics and habitat distribution for a subset of
fish species. However, retrospective monitoring (e.g., status and trend monitoring) may not
provide a strong basis for guiding management strategies where the past may not be a good
predictor of the future (e.g., climate change). Given emerging pressures on natural resources,
prospective monitoring is essential.
15To inform natural resources management decisions under these emerging conditions, a broad
suite of species need to be monitored, but sustainable long-term funding for monitoring is
scarce. To these ends, ODFW’s REDD group is developing an integrated monitoring framework
that will provide more comprehensive coverage of species, is economically viable, and can
adapt and incorporate best available science in statistical and modeling techniques, genetics,
remote sensing, decision support tools, and ecosystem theory.
[1] The PST is an international agreement between the U.S. and Canada to conserve Pacific salmon and manage
salmon harvest
[1] A Species Management Unit (SMU) is a collection of populations from a common geographic region that share
similar genetic and ecological characteristics.
16Oregon Department of Forestry
Geographic and Jurisdictional Responsibilities
The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), through administration of the Oregon Forest
Practices Act (FPA) and rules, oversees and coordinates on measures designed to maintain and
improve water bodies (streams, lakes, wetlands) in Oregon that are in non-federal, non-tribal
forestland. Ownerships of these lands include private industrial, private non-industrial, state,
county, and non-profit, except where cities or counties have adopted ordinances that meet
standards described in statute. These measures are BMPs principally designed to meet water
quality standards set by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), or to enhance
fish habitat (addressed in coordination with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and
the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board). ODF also coordinates inquiries related to
pesticides with the Pesticide Analytical and Response Center (PARC).
Agency Specific Monitoring, Data, and Information Needs
In 2016, the Department of Forestry updated their Monitoring Strategy. This Strategy focuses
on implementation and effectiveness monitoring of rules and voluntary measures on forestland
that is both non-federal and non-tribal. The agency addresses monitoring through a regular
process to audit implementation of rules, and through studies to test effectiveness. The
Strategy articulates the following high-priority questions related to water:
Implementation
What are compliance rates for rules for riparian areas in forest operations?
What are compliance rates of riparian buffer requirements designed to prevent or minimize
stream sedimentation and/or meet water quality standards and TMDL load allocations in Type
Fstreams? (According to the Oregon Forest Practices technical rules, type F streams are those
that are used by fish. Type D streams are those that have domestic use, but are not fish-
bearing. All others are classified as type N streams).
What are the compliance rates with BMP requirements for roads, skid trails, and high risk sites?
What fraction of culverts in forest operation areas currently meet FPA standards? For the
fraction that does not meet standards, what are the causes (e.g., legacy, recent storms,
insufficient FPA compliance)?
Are pesticide rules being followed?
Effectiveness
When implemented, how effective are (new) riparian prescriptions (voluntary or regulatory) at
protecting water quality, providing large wood recruitment and attaining desired future
conditions?
What fraction of riparian areas in forest operation areas are currently on track to meet FPA
riparian "desired future condition (DFC)” targets? For the fraction that is not on this track, what
are the causes (e.g., due to legacy, blow-down, lack of hardwood-to-conifer conversion,
insufficient FPA compliance)? Do DFC targets translate into mature forest conditions that meet
water quality standards and other goals?
17Are forest practice rules effectively protecting headwater (small Type N) streams such that local
and downstream beneficial uses are protected? Key issues include effects on stream
temperature, large wood recruitment, stream flow, sediment delivery, mass wasting initiation
and debris torrent processes, macroinvertebrates, and how those effects are translated
downstream.
Are forest practices, including roads, under current rules effective in meeting all applicable
water quality criteria established by DEQ, including those established by TMDLs, for water
quality parameters affected by forest practices on fish and non-fish bearing water bodies?
Are culvert replacement projects effective in restoring conditions beneficial to fish? What
factors such as upstream habitat length and conditions, channel gradient, culvert design, etc.
correlate with effectiveness?
Status and Implementation of Agency Monitoring Strategy
ODF updated its monitoring strategy in 2016. The department’s monitoring focuses on
assessing the effectiveness of its rules, and the implementation of both the rules and voluntary
measures (primarily, those forestry-related ones from the Oregon Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds). As of 2017, to implement the Strategy, the Oregon Board of Forestry has directed
the department to scope a study on assessing effectiveness of riparian protections in eastern
and southwestern Oregon. Additionally, we are designing the final analyses of the Riparian
Function and Stream Temperature (RipStream) study. These analyses will assess the
effectiveness of riparian rules along small and medium fish-bearing streams to recruit large
wood and produce the desired future conditions for these riparian stands. We are in
conversation with OWEB and other state agencies to design studies to assess the effectiveness
of forestry-related voluntary measures from the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.
The Agency has the following monitoring and analysis projects in progress:
● Completing the final analyses for the Riparian Function and Stream Temperature
project:
○ Large wood recruitment
○ Desired future conditions of riparian management areas,
● Assessing implementation of forestry-related voluntary measures under the Oregon
Plan for Salmon and Watersheds,
● Determining which riparian effectiveness monitoring question(s) to address in eastern
and southwestern Oregon, a summary of the level of information already available, and
initial scoping of methods to address the question(s), and
● Continuing the annual compliance audit of forest practices rules.
The Department also participates in the Watersheds Research Cooperative that uses paired
studies to test various forest practices.
Data and Information Gaps
The data and information required are specific to each monitoring study the Department
conducts. The most important gaps in information are those related to the aforementioned
high priority monitoring questions. The gaps are clarified in the process of designing each study.
18Oregon Water Resources Department
Geographic and Programmatic Responsibilities
By law, all surface and groundwater in Oregon belongs to the public. The Water Resources
Department is the state agency charged with administration of the laws governing surface and
groundwater resources. The Department's core functions are to protect existing water rights,
facilitate voluntary streamflow restoration, increase the understanding of the demands on the
state's water resources, provide accurate and accessible water resource data, and facilitate
water supply solutions.
In 1909, the State Engineer’s Office, the Department’s predecessor, officially began registering
water use. The Office worked in close partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to
monitor water resources. The Department continues to work closely with the USGS on both
surface water and groundwater monitoring and related studies. Together, the Department and
USGS operate a gage network around the state of more than 500 stream gages. Of the over 250
gages operated by the Department, nearly 90% are close to real-time.
The Groundwater Act of 1955 (ORS 537.505 to 537.795 and ORS 537.992) establishes the
authority for groundwater management and monitoring statewide to ensure the preservation
of the public welfare, safety, and health. The Groundwater Act also directs the state to
determine the extent, capacity, quality, and other characteristics of its groundwater bodies
(ORS 537.525 (6)), which are used to inform resource management decisions. Other important
aspects of the state’s groundwater management policy provide that rights to use groundwater
be protected, reasonably stable groundwater levels be determined and maintained, and
groundwater overdraft be prevented.
ORS 537.099 requires all governmental entities to monitor monthly water use and report water
data annually to the Water Resources Department. This requirement has been in place since
1987. The rules governing the state’s Water Use Reporting Program are found in OAR 690-085.
Since the Water Resources Department holds instream water rights in trust, the agency is
responsible for monitoring instream water rights per OAR 690-085-0010(2)(d).
Agency Specific Monitoring and Information Needs
Oregon’s first Integrated Water Resources Strategy (IWRS) was adopted by the Water
Resources Commission in 2012 and describes numerous coming pressures that may affect our
water needs and supplies. The IWRS places an emphasis on data and monitoring to support
decision-making, with a primary objective to better understand surface and groundwater
resources today, and to better understand the interaction or connection between these
resources. The IWRS emphasizes expanding the state’s monitoring networks and fostering
inter-agency data collection and processing. The IWRS led to the development of the
Department’s first Monitoring Strategy, which was finalized in February 2016. This strategy
outlines key surface water and groundwater monitoring priorities for the following:
19Climate Change
• Identify basins susceptible to changing flow regimes (e.g., basins that receive a
significant percentage of precipitation as snow) and establish gages to quantify the rate
of change in the magnitude, frequency, duration, and timing of streamflow.
• Identify groundwater systems with areas of recharge within the rain-snow transition
zone and monitor groundwater level responses to climatic impacts.
• Work with the USGS and other partners to support long-term, natural streamflow
monitoring stations that have previously been used to assess climate impacts on water
supplies (e.g., USGS Hydro-Climatic Data Network stations, Geospatial Attributes of
Gages for Evaluating Streamflow stations).
Extreme Events
Floods
• Identify gages that measure natural peak flows contained within channel and can be
measured. Increase the number of high-flow measurements or relocate these gages.
• Upgrade gages in flood-prone areas to transmit data in real-time for flood forecasting
and early warning systems. Work with other state agencies and municipalities to
identify at-risk areas.
• Identify watersheds within the Rapid Assessment Flooding Tool (RAFT) program that
would benefit from additional gages and/or additional measurements.
• Deploy temporary gages for real-time monitoring of high flow events.
Drought
• Establish streamflow gages in locations that are vulnerable to low-flow conditions, to
help with water supply forecasting.
• Establish water-level gages or inflow and outflow gages on reservoirs that provide water
supplies or instream releases and that are also susceptible to short-term drought.
• Identify gages currently used for low-flow distribution and drought statistics; upgrade to
near real-time, as needed.
Wildfire Conditions
• Place traditional streamflow gages or rapid deployment gages in recently burned
watersheds to track and send alerts regarding potential flash flooding and debris flows.
Groundwater Protection
Identify Groundwater Level Trends
• Construct dedicated observation wells in key aquifers around Oregon to expand and
improve long-term groundwater level data collection; locate wells in areas of high
groundwater demand, hydraulic connection between aquifers and streams, and
groundwater recharge locations.
• Install data logging equipment in key observation wells to expand the continuous
groundwater level data collection network.
• Estimate annual aquifer recharge rates for basins in Oregon, and compare aquifer
recharge to aquifer discharge (via pumping wells, or discharge to streams and springs).
20You can also read
